Simulators

wrote in message
...
Low cost sims would be a lot more useful if they came with a
instructor and a curriculum.

Let me justify that. With many home sim programs, A lot of people
learn to land right on the edge of Dead Man's Curve, without some
instruction or evaluation. Ie a controlled crash at very low speed
with no flare. If its a game, thats fine, and you can get the 172
onto the carrier that way. But it may be doing many a disservice.
It would be nice, if included in the cost of the software, you could
upload a file to have your flight constructively evaluated by a human

Steve Roberts

Irrelevant, in my opinion. You can't any more learn to fly with a simulator
than you could with radio controlled models. They're both toys.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Birdog writes:

What medical condition grounded you?

Also, do you ever fly with someone else as PIC?

Three years ago I checked out in a 150 (NOT solo) and followed that up with
an hour in a AT-6. I was rusty as hell, and could not perform the simlplest
aerobatics with any simblance of precision.

Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking
about
computers?

I talked about that in a sense in the original post. Simulators are
obviously fun for the non-pilot, but they are still just toys. Flying, at
least to me, was all about sensations. I can't imagine sweaty palms, white
knuckles and heavy breathing on a night IFR approach in variable winds, in
front of a computer screen.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

... have you considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and
no medical is required.

Really? (I've never looked.) That seems odd ... isn't an incapacitated pilot
in a glider in just as much danger as he would be in a powered aircraft? And
can't he still hit things and injure people and property on the ground? I
thought that was the whole idea behind requiring medicals.

Gliders are usually lighter than other small planes (my glider is about
average and weighs 800 pounds with me in it) so the potential for damage
is considerably less. Gliders carry no fuel, so there is essentially no
risk of fire. Gliders almost never fly over densely populated areas, so
the probability of crashing into something valuable is considerably
less. Glider pilots carry passengers much less frequently, and almost
always carry one at a time, so the risk to passengers is much less.

So no, an incapacitated glider pilot is much less of a danger.

Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes.

What do you think of glider simulations in MSFS?

I've heard that there are some add-on gliders for MSFS that are greatly
superior to the default (as there are for powered aircraft), but I haven't
looked into it as I've not felt very attracted to gliding. Gliding seems to
be mostly a visceral and visual experience, both of which are weak points of
desktop simulators.

The last time I used MSFS was version 4, I think, where everything was
still flat-shaded polygons and there were a grand total of three
airports available, one of which was Meigs Field where the default
start. So I have no direct experience with MSFS's glider simulation.

I do have some direct experience with X-Plane's glider simulation, and
it's total crap. I mean, it's OK for just flying around, but the
simulation of thermals is junk and the ridge lift doesn't work very
well. The tow simulation is ridiculous. The audio variometer, the single
most useful instrument in the plane, is completely broken.

And then there are generic simulator problems too, that MSFS will share
even if it fixes all of those (which it probably doesn't). The field of
view is ridiculously narrow, which makes everything difficult, but
especially screws up landing. (I spend the last third or so of my
downwind leg looking over my shoulder, for example, with quick glances
back at the instruments.) When thermalling, the jolts in the ass are
very helpful in finding the center and of course there's no way to get
those.

The most damning thing about it, though, is that it's just not any fun.
Being out over the countryside 30 miles from home, working lift so you
can make it back, is *fun*. Simulating being out over the countryside 30
miles from home is just boring.

If you're going to try glider sims, try one of the specialized ones such
as Silent Wings or Condor. While they can't fix the inherent poor field
of view or lack of kicks in the ass or the lack of fun, they at least
get the other stuff right.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Would you expect a computer jock to get peeved when pilots start talking about
computers?

I would, if they started acting like they knew better than actual
computer people.

I've heard pilots say a lot of really silly things about computers. And
why wouldn't they? It's not what they know. However, all of the pilots I
know who don't know much about computers *know* that they don't know
much about computers, so when they say silly things they say it in such
a way as to be open to correction. Which sometimes I provide, when I
think it'll be informative, and sometimes I don't, when I think it's
better to just let it be.

You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.
Fortunately this has not happened, and I don't expect it to.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

We've got 86+ year old glider pilots.. granted they started flying in the
1940s or 50s.
Don't tell a glider pilot he can't get anywhere when 300km cross countries
are the norm out here.

Roger on the diabetes.. depending on the severity and control one has over
the condition. One can still fly gliders or light sport aircraft.. has your
doctor or family taken away your auto driver's license? If so.. then perhaps
one should not be in a glider.

B

"Birdog" wrote in message
...

"Mike Ash" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Birdog" wrote:

The discussion on simulators was interesting in many aspects. Since
being
grounded some 20 years ago (medical), I've tried substitutes - radio
control
and computer simulators - and found them sorely lacking, if not
downright
boring. However, while playing with the simulator, I could not help but
grieve that it was not available back in the days when I was burning
time
and fuel in IFR training - basically learning to scan the instruments
until
it became virtually instinctive. So, while I get a little peeved when a
computer jock starts arguing with active pilots, their questions
sometimes
elicit interesting discussions, and I do think these $75.00 programs
have a
valuable (and cheap) place in flight training.

While ground-bound for two decades, I still love any discussion of
flying!

I tend to agree with the above. Simulators are what got me into flying
for real, even if they taught me some habits to unlearn. And clearly
they're useful for certain things, even if they're not the high-fidelity
monsters our friend thinks they are.

I apologize if the question is unwelcome, but if your medical grounding
was due to something that didn't really make you unsafe, have you
considered flying gliders? They're a lot of fun, and no medical is
required. Of course some people don't enjoy that sort of thing, and
nothing against them, as everybody has different tastes. But I just
thought I'd mention in, on the off chance that you'd like it, hadn't
thought of it, and are able.

Diabetes got me. I have flown in gliders (once - not PIC). I dunno - you
can't really go anywhere in a glider, and somehow the thrust, the engine
noise and vibration were a part of the mystique. Just didn't pull my
chain. Academic now anyhow - I'm 82 years old.

On Mar 9, 8:16*am, "BT" wrote:
We've got 86+ year old glider pilots.. granted they started flying in the
1940s or 50s.
Don't tell a glider pilot he can't get anywhere when 300km cross countries
are the norm out here.

Not every-one has a Silver "C"

Mike Ash writes:

You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.

I've been lectured in this way, and not necessarily or merely by pilots, but I
don't get angry over it.

In article ,
Mxsmanic wrote:

Mike Ash writes:

You can bet that if some pilot who had never written a line of code in
his life showed up at the airport and started lecturing me on Python and
Perl and first-class functions and all the rest, even though he clearly
had no idea of what he was talking about, I'd get ****ed off.

I've been lectured in this way, and not necessarily or merely by pilots, but I
don't get angry over it.

Well good for you.

--
Mike Ash
Radio Free Earth
Broadcasting from our climate-controlled studios deep inside the Moon

Birddog wrote
Irrelevant, in my opinion. You can't any more learn to fly with a simulator
than you could with radio controlled models. They're both toys.

I will agree that MSFS on a home PC is a toy and that X-plane is a
close second in the "From Santa with Love" department.


As for totally useless, I must respectfully disagree.

What I'm working on is vastly different and the company is owned by
pilots with engineering degrees. We're taking the "toy" out of it. We
will also train the IP to use it, provide a course of study for the
student, and pull the IP in to the factory once a year for a
recertification on the use of the unit. We'll also be able to score
the student AND THE IP over a internet connection. Its good for 3
hours out of the minimum 40. That turns into 2 more hours the student
can spend in the real aircraft, without drastic increases in the cost
of the license.

Teachers have a rule, to determine if a teaching method is useful.It
says: "A goal or objective in the classroom must be observable and
measurable". That is one of the many missing parts in the desktop
toys, when it comes to being useful to a student.

Steve

Mike Ash wrote:

If you're going to try glider sims, try one of the specialized ones such
as Silent Wings or Condor. While they can't fix the inherent poor field
of view or lack of kicks in the ass or the lack of fun, they at least
get the other stuff right.

While its not 100%, grab a old throwaway PC, put it on your left
and slightly behind you, and network it to the primary computer. You
can set it to slave off the forward PC, and set the view angle to
whatever you desire. It makes a world of difference in judging the
final, there is shareware to do it for MSFS, and it is built into
X=Plane. Its a kluge, but it works. I imagine the glider sims can
will support that or a Matrox TripleHead2Go setup as well.

Steve